Heheh. Here’s Hillary trying to do something common folks do every day:

Let’s just hope and pray that if she were elected president, she’s wouldn’t be as clumsy with the nuke button as she was with that coffee maker …

Via Drudge.

… and guess what? Yours truly will be there. Just signed up for and received my very own e-ticket. I’m breathless with anticipation! He’s finally scheduled an event that won’t intrude on my workday.

Unfortunately I haven’t brushed up on my CPR training, so I’ll be no help to the fainting masses at the rally - no matter though. The Obamessiah always manages to find medics in the house to take care of his overcome followers. If the fainting starts at this rally, too, I’ll just stand back and pretend to be in awe, and let the pros take care of the faintees.

In what has to be one of the most vicious, uncalled for columns I’ve ever read, the SF Chronicle’s Mark Morford goes off on First Lady Laura Bush, accusing her of being “the ideal Republican wife: Prim, sexless, nearly useless, lets the men do the real thinkin’.” He cites the opinion of a “conservative friend” who is Catholic, a mother, and a grandmother for the basis of his opinion. According to him, she hated Teresa Heinz-Kerry because she was “too strong” and “too fearless and outspoken.”

Morford, on the other hand, holds up Heinz-Kerry as a role model for what First Ladies should be like. Let’s pick up on where he starts in on Mrs. Bush:

No, I was stunned because my friend far preferred, as the perfect counter to Heinz, as a role model and a woman and the ideal presidential wife, one tepid, timid, thoroughly useless Laura Bush.

Wait, what? You mean docile, prudish, former librarian Laura Bush, she of the nonexistent inspiration and dull-as-dishwater personality? Yes indeed, that Laura Bush. Here was my friend, brash and funny and who spoke her mind without the slightest reservation, and who could drink and think and opine with the strongest of men, and yet she admired this … limp wallflower? I didn’t get it. I still don’t completely get it, to this very day.

All of this comes to mind as I see, skirting across the newswires, a handful of generic photos and sidebar stories of Laura Bush out on tour recently with her twin Styrofoam peanut daughters, Jenna and Barbara, promoting a new children’s book they all apparently, and yeah right, wrote together and isn’t that sweet.

There is Laura, looking exactly as she has looked for the past eight insufferable years. Prim, a bit glassy, reserved, her hair some sort of ironclad helmet of awkward architecture, the very epitome of nice, meek, domestic Republican female, not making the slightest wave and hoping no one really notices because, well, she’s just a woman.

In fact, I challenge anyone reading this column right now to name one thing this woman has said or done in the past seven-plus years that shows her using her position as first lady to make any real difference. A single issue. A single notable appearance. A single daring, interesting, engaging … anything.

Did you say, somewhat meekly, “children’s literacy?” Ah, yes. Right you are, Laura has indeed taken on that wild ‘n’ wooly issue, fought valiantly to ensure lots of white children have enough access to “James and the Giant Peach.” It’s a hugely divisive, hot-button topic that’s tearing the nation apart and really needs someone of her position and influence to step in and … Oh, never mind.

Children’s literacy. Yes. I believe that ranks No. 291 on the list of the Top 300 controversial issues facing the nation today, right behind overpriced lip balm but just ahead of the demise of “Cathy” cartoons in major American newspapers. Good choice.

I know. It’s not exactly against the law to be docile and quiet. It’s not exactly a crime to simply want to be a good mother and housewife (noble and under-respected callings, both), to not seek the spotlight and not hunger for power and influence. And besides, meek, shy girls who want nothing more than to marry the male equivalent of a tub of spackling paste at age 22 and never think for themselves and never inspire anyone to do anything need role models, too. Right?

Sure, eight years in one of the most high-profile positions in the world, a simply staggering opportunity to make use of that power and that “office” to take on at least one serious, needful issue (or 10), and you do not a single thing of interest or inspiration with it? You essentially get handed the keys to the kingdom and all you want to do is knit a nice key cozy for them? Fine.

But then again, no. For in choosing to be and do almost nothing at all for all these years, Laura has also come to epitomize the compliant, unobtrusive woman, the worst kind of example for modern young women today. This is, of course, why conservative Republicans and fundie Christians love her. They call her “classy.” What they mean is: She knows her place, keeps her mouth shut, possesses exactly zero sexuality, speaks only when spoken to, lets the men do the “real” work, stays so far off in the background she might as well be wallpaper.

Here’s the bottom line: I think Laura Bush has been bad for America. Not nearly as toxic as her husband, but bad enough.

Indeed, Teresa Heinz Kerry may’ve been weird and worldly, Hillary might be polarizing and opinionated and overly masculine, Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, appears to be outspoken and sarcastic and smart as hell. But oh my God, give me one of them any day over the docile doormat first lady. Hasn’t the expiration date for that dangerous feminine cliche long since passed?

Sounds like an uber feminist-in-training, doesn’t he?

In Morford’s eyes (and as implied from previous columns), there is not a better woman out there than the woman who advocates and pushes a Socialistic agenda, whether she be in the role of (potential) First Lady or some other influential position. As you read above, Morford’s unimpressed with Mrs. Bush’s children’s literacy campaign because it’s …. not controversial enough. I guess we should cut him some slack, though, because the fact that he’s such a clueless moron is a strong indicator that those responsible for educating Morford when he was a young boy clearly didn’t believe in the importance of children’s literacy, either.

True feminists back in the day fought for the right to vote, they fought for equal rights in the workplace, and for an attitudinal change in the way people viewed a woman’s role in society. They wanted a woman’s options to be expanded beyond the traditional roles of the time. If a woman choose to be a stay at home mother, that was fine, and if she wanted to work, early feminists fought for that to become acceptable in our society. It was all about choices.

Somewhere along the way the feminist movement splintered into multiple factions, with the most popular of them being the radical leftist element that shunned any woman who frowned upon sexual irresponsiblity, any woman who made the choice to be a stay at home wife and mom (or who chose only a part time job), and/or and any woman who didn’t view males as the root of all evil. Essentially, if you didn’t follow the agenda of radical feminists to the letter, then you weren’t a “real woman.” As ya’ll know, I was a liberal once upon a time and considered myself a feminist, but even I didn’t get carried away with these attitudes - but I did run up against them alot. I can’t tell you how many times I talked to feminists who snickered and scoffed at the idea of stay at home motherhood, who viewed women pushing baby strollers as “tied down” and too “domesticated.” Never once did it hit them that the women they laughed at had made their own choices about their lives.

Sadly, these views are still all too common today amongst staunch feminists who preach about a woman’s “right to choose” (most commonly on abortion) but who in reality despise it when a woman chooses a path that runs contrary to what they believe it should be, which translates into wanting women to be anti-male, anti-family, and anti-responsiblity when it comes to their choices.

Which brings us back to Mark Morford, who is some combination of the above - well, perhaps with the exception of the “anti-male” part … although no one can be sure, considering the self-hatred that oozes out of the pores of so many on the far left. He’s probably not anti-male, but I see he possesses a dangerously unhealthy level of misogny against conservative women, considering that not only did he attack Mrs. Bush for not being more ‘outspoken’ but because of her looks, too: she’s “[p]rim, a bit glassy, reserved, her hair some sort of ironclad helmet of awkward architecture …,” she “possesses exactly zero sexuality,” she’s “prudish” and “sexless.” Like he’d be rooting for Laura Bush if she were a buxom blonde wearing a mini-dress and sky high pumps while waging war on abortion.

What relevance does this bear as it relates to the consideration of what a woman’s ideal role is in society? None, really,when you consider that two of the women he cited as role models for the younger generation were Hillary Clinton and Teresa Heinz-Kerry. I’m not about to be catty when it comes to their looks, but neither of them come across as exuding any “sexuality” and their hairstyles are pretty much run of the mill - in other words, nothing to write home about. It’s their outspoken, boisterous nature and tendency to support and promote liberal policies that has Morford so awestruck. But if either of them were conservative women who didn’t relish their time in the limelight and chose instead to calmly go about the business of being First Lady promoting non-Morford approved non-”controversial” agendas, he’d be writing about their looks, too. He’s a classic misogynist who knows that the surest way to cut a woman to the quick is to insult her based on her looks - on top of everything else.

Robert Stacy McCain writes this analysis:

I think it goes beyond the political. I think Morford has psychological issues that involve a hostility to traditional sex roles.

Call it Post-Feminism Syndrome. Guys who don’t want to deal with the responsibilities of traditional masculinity — husband, father, breadwinner, all that stoic and steadfast stuff — tend to project this fear onto women who epitomize traditional femininity: wife, mother, homemaker, all that kind and nurturing stuff.

Post-Feminism Syndrome is the obverse of the well-noted tendency of feminist women to lash out at men who epitomize traditional notions of masculinity. And both tendencies are rooted in the individual’s personal discomfort with traditional sex roles.

Please note what I’m not saying: I’m not saying that everyone has to fit into traditional roles. I’m just saying that such over-the-top attacks on traditional roles — or on people who in some way epitomize those roles, as in the case of Morford’s attack on Laura Bush — are outward expressions of a troubled personality.

Indeed.

Obviously, Morford’s a f—ing far left idiot who rivals even the most radical of feminists in the way he expresses his views on women who make choices that run contrary to his standards of the “ideal woman.” He’s got the stuck on stupid act down pat, if nothing else. NOW president Kim Gandy better watch her back. She’s got some serious competition.

I’m interested in hearing from my readers about the conservative women in their lives, whether they be wives, mothers, sisters, cousins, friends, whoever. Do they fit Morford’s description of an “ideal Republican [conservative]” female? Or are you yourself a conservative female who fits his description?

Would you like to write the SF Chronicle to voice your opinion? Michelle Malkin has the contact info. Or, you can write Morford directly at: mmorford@sfgate.com.

Update: Jules Crittenden smacks around Morford a few times as well.

Got a busy day ahead … will check in later when I can.

Two ads - several big distortions. FactCheck has the ads, the context, and the correct facts and figures here.

I guess asking for a teensie weensie bit of honesty out of the Democratic party campaign season is asking too much.

In related Dem party news, Marc Ambinder blogged earlier today about the latest proposal by Michigan Dems to try and resolve their delegate dilemma. I don’t think it’s going to fly, primarily because it appears to benefit Obama way more than it does Clinton. She would only net about 10 delegates out of the deal, whereas if the results stood as is she’d net 18. Ambinder reports that the Obama camp is saying they’ll review the proposal.

No word yet from the Clinton campaign.

DNC Chair Howie Dean thinks he’s going to be able to resolve the FL and MI mess by June. I don’t see it happening.

Now this is more like it.

I’m busy this afternoon, but will have more commentary on this later.

Update - 7:17 PM: I just got done watching both his opening statement and the answers he gave earlier today to the press about Rev. Wright’s speech to the NPC yesterday. I don’t want to overanalyze it, as most of what I’d write I’ve already said before, but it’s clear that Barack Obama’s relationship with Rev. Wright has changed - and what has caused it has been the national outcry over not just the sermon clips the news media repeatedly aired a few weeks ago, but the renewed interest in the story thanks to Rev. Wright’s “Look at Me 2008″ tour, where clearly Wright’s concern has not been about Barack Obama, but instead about how much free publicity he can get from the press.

In Obama’s statement and Q&A session, his biggest issue was the fact that the Rev. was hurting his campaign. That’s understandable, considering Wright has for all intents thrown Obama under the bus by continuing to stir the pot. Reading between the lines of what Obama said today, I got the impression that his deepest regret was that he couldn’t convince the Rev. to keep a low profile from now until the election. He even went so far as to assert that the man we heard yesterday at the NPC is not the man he met 20 years ago.

Horsecrap. This is about as believable as him stating when the sermon clips started getting widespread attention that he wasn’t in church on the days the controversial sermons were made. Obama also told the press today that one thing Wright was correct about was that he was never Obama’s spiritual mentor. WTH? Obama has highly praised Wright on more than one occasion (primarily before he became the front runner), and wrote a book and a popular speech which he pointed out more than once were inspired by his pastor. For him to try and claim now that Wright’s and his relationship wasn’t particularly close after all that is an insult to the intelligence of anyone who has paid attention to Obama in this race and who cares about a candidate’s trustworthiness and honesty.

It also sounds similar to the stunt he tried to pull at the much-discussed ABC News debate, where he tried to boil down his association with Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers as insignificant, asserting that Ayers was just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood.” And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t what he said today about the black church and how it’s not being represented by radicals like Rev. Wright a direct contradiction to what he said in his Philly speech? I’ll have to go back and read the transcript.

I could go on and on, but someday someone out there is going to compile a list - in book form - of all the contradictory statements Obama has made about his relationship with Rev. Wright.

The bottom line is that Obama thought his big speech on race in Philadelphia over a month ago was going to be the end of him having to answer for Rev. Wright, and he figured that the mediots - who had shielded him as much as they credibly could prior to that, would move on. They gladly would have, had it not been for the self-centered Rev. Wright’s latest round of “fiery” speeches and interviews, where he paints Obama as a politican who speaks out of both sides of his mouth, and continues to portray this great nation as full of nothing but white oppressors. Naturally, that is going make headlines.

Obama sounded upset today in his presser. He should have been, but more so with himself than Wright. Had he as forcefully denounced Rev Wright when this story first broke weeks ago as he did today, then maybe he wouldn’t be in the position he’s found himself in again as it relates to his “former” pastor. He couldn’t find a way to put a positive spin on Rev. Wright’s latest hateful remarks like he did the last time, couldn’t convince the Rev. to keep it on the down low at least until the election was over, so he was left with no choice but to come out swinging the second time around.

Obama made his own bed over Rev. Wright, and now he has to lay in it - or, as Steve Sailor pointedly notes, lie in it.

Related: Gotta give Obama credit where it’s due on his response to the calls for violence in NYC after the Sean Bell ruling.

Via CBS News’ “From the Road” blog:

“This lady right here makes Rocky Balboa look like a pansy,” said Governor Mike Easley, D-N.C., today, referring to Hillary Clinton.

I think the analogy is off a bit. For one thing, Rocky Balboa wouldn’t cheat to win, nor would he expect Adrian to stand in the ring in his place …

Newt Gingrich thinks so:

ABC News’ Nitya Venkataraman Reports: In a Tuesday appearance on Good Morning America, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., suggested that controversial pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright is angry with parishioner Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and may be deliberately trying to hurt his presidential bid.

Saying that Wright “went out of his way to weaken Obama” during Monday’s address at the National Press Club, Gingrich told Barbara Walters “I think Reverend Wright has a greater interest in his self-importance.”

Gingrich described Obama former pastor as “hard-line anti-American”, and said “if Rev. Wright continues to talk that the burden that Sen. Obama carries becomes bigger and bigger. ”

Gingrich described Obama’s challenges as “two-fold”, citing “left-wing relationships” calling the Illinois senator “disingenuous” about them.

The full interview can be viewed here.

I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility that Wright may be making a conscious attempt at stalling Obama’s campaign, for the reasons Newt mentioned, plus one I don’t know if he did or not since I haven’t watched the interview: I think in Wright’s mind, an Obama loss in the general would “prove” him right about America’s supposed “racist” attitudes towards black people - in spite of the fact that he is winning over rich white liberals in states all across the country. The Rev. is a narcissistic type who doesn’t think he’s wrong about anything and it would be a feather in his cap to be “proven” right about a black man’s chances at getting elected president in America. Ironically, if Obama doesn’t get elected president, part of the reason why will be because of the lack of good judgment he exercised while sitting in the pews of TUCC for 20 years listening to his racist spiritual mentor’s rantings and ravings about how awful this country is, and not speaking up about it.

In other words, those same “racist” voters Wright believes would never elect a black man as president may be the same voters who reject Wright’s very real racism by casting a vote for Obama’s opponent, seeing Obama’s silence in the face of the Rev’s rants for 20 years as essentially condoning them.

It could be a self-fulfilling prophecy for Wright … sort of.

Previous:

• Rev. Wright’s 2008 “Look at Me” tour

The Raleigh N&O blog reports this evening that our Democrat governor will endorse Hillary Clinton for prez tomorrow:

Gov. Mike Easley is going to endorse U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton on Tuesday, according to Tom Hendrickson, a former state Democratic party chairman who is a key Clinton supporter in North Carolina.

Easley agreed to the endorsement after returning from an economic development trip to Italy, reports Rob Christensen. Clinton is expected to fly to Raleigh on Tuesday for a joint event with Easley.

[…]

An Easley endorsement would be the first endorsement for Clinton from a major North Carolina political figure. Three members of North Carolina’s congressional delegation have endorsed Sen. Barack Obama.

Easley does not have the same sort of political machine that Gov. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania used to help deliver votes for Clinton in that state.

But Easley is popular with rural, white, blue-collar Democrats, the sort of voters that Clinton has successfully targeted in wins in Pennslyvania and Ohio.

I don’t think the endorsement will help her much in next week’s primary, outside of solidifying her core group of voters (working class whites, seniors, etc). Easley, I should note, is known by those paying attention to politics around here as the “absentee governor” (as described by, surprisingly, the liberal Charlotte Observer).

Speaking of Hillary, I wonder if she had any BBQ today while she was in Concord, NC (Charlotte’s next door neighbor)?

CONCORD –About 300 supporters stood through a downpour this afternoon to see and hear Hillary Clinton outside Troutman’s Bar-B-Q restaurant in Concord.

Some had waited for hours for the appearance, scheduled for 4:30 p.m. Clinton appeared about 4:45, as the rain stopped.

“I’m here in Concord because I need you next Tuesday,” she said of the N.C. primary.

The nation needs a change, Clinton said, and she’s the right person to clean up the damage she said the Bush administration has caused.

“I happen to know a little bit about cleaning house,” she said, to cheers from the crowd.

She talked about creating jobs for an area that’s been devastated by the loss of thousands of manufacturing jobs, including the closing of the Pillowtex textile plants in 2003.

“I thought the economy was working pretty good in the 1990s,” she said of her husband’s administration.

[…]

Inside the restaurant, another 150 supporters who had waited — some since 1 p.m. — weren’t disappointed. Clinton worked her way through the crowd one by one, shaking hands, hugging supporters and having her picture taken with them.

“Have you already voted?” she asked them.

Four female students who identified themselves as “students for Hillary” had their photos taken with her.

Caroline Ford of Concord, a 22-year-old UNC Charlotte student, held a poster that said, “I’m 22 and I’m voting for you Hillary.”

Clinton autographed her poster.

“She seemed very genuine,” Ford said. “We don’t judge books by their covers.”

“Yeah, I heard some girl say she would vote for (Obama) because he was cute,” said Anita Honeycutt, 21, another UNCC student from Concord.

Wow - now that’s a shocker.

Related: “Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for 2009, almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator this year.” - The Hill

Sounds like she’s getting an early start on her “Shared Prosperity” plan …

Many, many apologies for the continued off and on site access issues. My hosting service told me today that I am on their “big blogs’ server where a lot of their heavy traffic sites are, and it’s been under attack for the last few days on and off. They’re still looking into a fix for the prob. Hopefully they’ll find one soon because I’m pulling my hair out.

So very very frustrating. I’d offer you all a ‘partial refund’ for the services you’re not getting from the blog but, er, since this isn’t a pay per view blog well, there’s not much I can do ….